The Problem With JCF (If You Are Scared Of Change, Don't Read This!)

[Mal12345]

I have at times been accused of being against JCF. In fact, I am not. In fact, lately I have been studying Jung's original cognitive types more intently than usual.

Modern JCF theory is dominated by the unwarranted assumption that MBTI types are created from combinations of Jung's dominant and auxiliary types. Thus:
ISFJ = Si + Fe; ISTJ = Si + Te;
ESFJ = Fe + Si; ESTJ = Te + Si;

INFP = Fi + Ne; INTP = Ti + Ne;
ENFP = Ne + Fi; ENTP = Ne + Ti;...

...and so on.

Notice, however, that in the first two rows of types, Si, whether as dominant or when relegated to the role of auxiliary, is never part of a Perceptive type but only a Judging type. By the same token, Ne, in the second group, is always part of a Perceptive type, but never a Judging type, even when in the auxiliary position.

Now if P and J are determined, not by some function-order formula considered valid only by assumption, but originally in Myers-Briggs' terms, as personality categories in their own right, then there is no reason why we can't have an "ISFJ" (in JCF terms, note the scare-quotes) who is, externally, a Perceiver.

P and J were originally conceived by Myers and Briggs to be externalized components of personality. Does the person generally, for the most part, appear to be: A. Spontaneous, or B. Controlling? A. Fun-loving, or B. Work-oriented?

Seen in the light of original MBTI theory, JCF quickly falls apart. The Si dominant and auxiliary types can no longer only be considered, controlling, work-oriented J personalities. The possibility is opened up for Si dominant and auxiliary types to be spontaneous and fun-loving.

Ne types, whether dominant or auxiliary, are no longer considered just part of spontaneous, fun-loving P personality types; they can also be controlling and work-oriented J types.

So contrary to JCF stereotypes about dominant and auxiliary functions:

Ni and Si people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Fi and Ti people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.
Fe and Te people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Ne and Se people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.

 

[Totenkindly]

You need to define better what you mean by "spontaneous and fun-loving" vs "controlling and work-oriented" as definitive of a person's entire character.

What makes one set of traits a dominant one for an individual, versus another set of traits that they can express in the right circumstances? I don't think anyone ever was claiming that J's can never like fun and must always work, and P's are vice-versa.

And as a bonus question: What type do you think is SO afraid of change that they can't even afford to read your thread? Change isn't even on the table yet, honestly; first you have to make a compelling argument.

 

[skylights]

Ni and Si people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Fi and Ti people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.
Fe and Te people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Ne and Se people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.

True, and Socionics already touches on this a bit, with its switch for dominant Judgers (like how INFP in MBTI generally corresponds to INFj in Socionics). I'm not sure I understand how this goes against anything in JCF, though. A spontaneous and fun-loving ISFJ will still seek external closure because of Fe.

A more radical departure would be doubly-introverted or doubly-extraverted Perception/Judgment combinations.

 

[Cellmold]

Change isn't even on the table yet, honestly; first you have to make a compelling argument.

OOOO burn!

The problem here Mal, is that all you are doing is exposing flaws that are already known about a system that attempts to structure human personality into set boxes and states. Of course there are going to be plenty of examples where the structure just doesn't work.

This isn't news to anyone. Also if we are discussing unwarranted assumptions this entire theory is essentially just that.

You or others can disagree of course, but there really is no reason to believe either Jung or Myers/Briggs.

A more radical departure would be doubly-introverted or doubly-extraverted Perception/Judgment combinations.

I met an INFP on Perc who was trying to popularise exactly that. Unfortunately he, (possibly she can't always tell with INFP's), could never hold it together when structure and logic was involved.

But it wasn't a bad idea, given the general 'throw-potato-at-the-walls' methods employed by typology theorists.

 

[Totenkindly]

OOOO burn!

lol. Less a burn, just reality... he has to define better what he means before anyone can buy into it.

A more radical departure would be doubly-introverted or doubly-extraverted Perception/Judgment combinations.

HERETIC!

Actually, those are already accepted -- except that they're labeled as "unhealthy" versions without changing function order, hence the dom/tert loop concept, etc. Is it possible to experience a Ti/Si combo as a healthy dom/aux rather than malformed dom/tert?

It's funny we don't really see people talking about FeNe loops.

 

[Cellmold]

Actually, those are already accepted -- except that they're labeled as "unhealthy" versions without changing function order, hence the dom/tert loop concept, etc. Is it possible to experience a Ti/Si combo as a healthy dom/aux rather than malformed dom/tert?

It's funny we don't really see people talking about FeNe loops.

Yeah, this was the wall that the aforementioned INFP ran up against. After all why should someone believe in a person who is doubly extraverted without the capacity for introspection or doubly introverted without the capacity for expression?

Loops have a better reasoning behind them, even if they are still questionable, they are a better degree of questionable than the theory that would produce a gary-gobalot style of personality or Iris-in-the-mind.

Those are caricatures after all. Besides that INFP thought I was ISTJ so I wanted to break his mental sandcastle.

Joking of course

Not really I made him cry

I think he writes poetry now.

 

[greenfairy]

What they said. But it's a nice thought. The systems should in theory be internally consistent with each other if they are describing the same thing and they are both true.

 

[INTP]

seems like you find "flaws" when you are just missing some understanding about some issue involving the systems.

 

[lunalum]

I have at times been accused of being against JCF. In fact, I am not. In fact, lately I have been studying Jung's original cognitive types more intently than usual.

Modern JCF theory is dominated by the unwarranted assumption that MBTI types are created from combinations of Jung's dominant and auxiliary types. Thus:
ISFJ = Si + Fe; ISTJ = Si + Te;
ESFJ = Fe + Si; ESTJ = Te + Si;

INFP = Fi + Ne; INTP = Ti + Ne;
ENFP = Ne + Fi; ENTP = Ne + Ti;...

...and so on.

Notice, however, that in the first two rows of types, Si, whether as dominant or when relegated to the role of auxiliary, is never part of a Perceptive type but only a Judging type. By the same token, Ne, in the second group, is always part of a Perceptive type, but never a Judging type, even when in the auxiliary position.

Now if P and J are determined, not by some function-order formula considered valid only by assumption, but originally in Myers-Briggs' terms, as personality categories in their own right, then there is no reason why we can't have an "ISFJ" (in JCF terms, note the scare-quotes) who is, externally, a Perceiver.

P and J were originally conceived by Myers and Briggs to be externalized components of personality. Does the person generally, for the most part, appear to be: A. Spontaneous, or B. Controlling? A. Fun-loving, or B. Work-oriented?

Seen in the light of original MBTI theory, JCF quickly falls apart. The Si dominant and auxiliary types can no longer only be considered, controlling, work-oriented J personalities. The possibility is opened up for Si dominant and auxiliary types to be spontaneous and fun-loving.

Ne types, whether dominant or auxiliary, are no longer considered just part of spontaneous, fun-loving P personality types; they can also be controlling and work-oriented J types.

So contrary to JCF stereotypes about dominant and auxiliary functions:

Ni and Si people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Fi and Ti people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.
Fe and Te people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Ne and Se people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.

Yes, yes, and of course yes.

But it's not Jung's/JCF's fault for Katherine/Isabella's epic slip up on the whole J/P thing

This is what happens when you severely underestimate the influence of the dominant/inferior dynamic.

 

[Mal12345]

Yes, yes, and of course yes.

But it's not Jung's/JCF's fault for Katherine/Isabella's epic slip up on the whole J/P thing

This is what happens when you severely underestimate the influence of the dominant/inferior dynamic.

Yes to what, yes to what, and of course yes to what?

I want to know what you think I wrote that was correct.

 

[Mal12345]

lol. Less a burn, just reality... he has to define better what he means before anyone can buy into it.



HERETIC!

Actually, those are already accepted -- except that they're labeled as "unhealthy" versions without changing function order, hence the dom/tert loop concept, etc. Is it possible to experience a Ti/Si combo as a healthy dom/aux rather than malformed dom/tert?

It's funny we don't really see people talking about FeNe loops.

Just this:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...tiary-loops-common-personality-disorders-480/
"ENTP/ESFJ: Ne/Fe or Fe/Ne--Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This type often behaves impulsively and manipulatively, needing constant approval and admiration from others, running around investing in new thing after new thing but never developing the self-confidence of a strong subjective perspective. Fe used negatively may use its awareness of the cultural standards of others to intentionally offend or upset them, in order to service Ne's curiosity about the patterns in their responses. If Ti/Si were working properly, it would give the user a balancing sense of personal, subjective importance and free him of his dependence upon the adulation and unconditional acceptance of others. (Horrible example: Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.)"

But if you really want to talk about it, you're always free to do so.

 

[Totenkindly]

Just this:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...tiary-loops-common-personality-disorders-480/
"ENTP/ESFJ: Ne/Fe or Fe/Ne--Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This type often behaves impulsively and manipulatively, needing constant approval and admiration from others, running around investing in new thing after new thing but never developing the self-confidence of a strong subjective perspective. Fe used negatively may use its awareness of the cultural standards of others to intentionally offend or upset them, in order to service Ne's curiosity about the patterns in their responses. If Ti/Si were working properly, it would give the user a balancing sense of personal, subjective importance and free him of his dependence upon the adulation and unconditional acceptance of others. (Horrible example: Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.)"

But if you really want to talk about it, you're always free to do so.

Lol, Sim.

Figures...

Well, is it possible to have a "healthy" Fe/Ne setup with those two traits remaining strong without being balanced in some way by introverted functions... or are the introverted functions NECESSARY to stabilize the personality?

 

[Eric B]

I have at times been accused of being against JCF. In fact, I am not. In fact, lately I have been studying Jung's original cognitive types more intently than usual.

Modern JCF theory is dominated by the unwarranted assumption that MBTI types are created from combinations of Jung's dominant and auxiliary types. Thus:
ISFJ = Si + Fe; ISTJ = Si + Te;
ESFJ = Fe + Si; ESTJ = Te + Si;

INFP = Fi + Ne; INTP = Ti + Ne;
ENFP = Ne + Fi; ENTP = Ne + Ti;...

...and so on.

Notice, however, that in the first two rows of types, Si, whether as dominant or when relegated to the role of auxiliary, is never part of a Perceptive type but only a Judging type. By the same token, Ne, in the second group, is always part of a Perceptive type, but never a Judging type, even when in the auxiliary position.

Now if P and J are determined, not by some function-order formula considered valid only by assumption, but originally in Myers-Briggs' terms, as personality categories in their own right, then there is no reason why we can't have an "ISFJ" (in JCF terms, note the scare-quotes) who is, externally, a Perceiver.

P and J were originally conceived by Myers and Briggs to be externalized components of personality. Does the person generally, for the most part, appear to be: A. Spontaneous, or B. Controlling? A. Fun-loving, or B. Work-oriented?

Seen in the light of original MBTI theory, JCF quickly falls apart. The Si dominant and auxiliary types can no longer only be considered, controlling, work-oriented J personalities. The possibility is opened up for Si dominant and auxiliary types to be spontaneous and fun-loving.

Ne types, whether dominant or auxiliary, are no longer considered just part of spontaneous, fun-loving P personality types; they can also be controlling and work-oriented J types.

So contrary to JCF stereotypes about dominant and auxiliary functions:

Ni and Si people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Fi and Ti people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.
Fe and Te people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Ne and Se people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.

There are other factors in the general behaviors of things like "controlling", "work-oriented", "fun loving", etc. Particularly informing/directing and structure/motive (both of which are "people vs task focus", which describes those traits you mentioned), and even to a certain extent, cooperative/pragmatic (which might shape how fast one takes "control"; i.e. self-initiated action).
These are all shaped by both J/P and T/F. (I/E may also affect this to some extent too).

Myers had determined that people who extravert judgment, or perception will have some things in common. It will be more of a mindset, than necessary behaviors, though they often come out that way. But not always, of course.

The difference is what you mean by "judgment" or "perceiving" type. To Jung, it was the dominant, while to Myers, it was the extraverted class of function. The descriptions you're talking about, which involve people's interaction with each other (called "affective") will naturally be shaped by the second definition.
Dominant function will not determine those things. Dominant will determine whether your ego's primary perspective is taking in information, or making decisions with it, but it's the standard of those perspectives that determine the function's attitudes, which shape those behaviors, and thus are what are represented by J/P.

 

[Mal12345]

Lol, Sim.

Figures...

Well, is it possible to have a "healthy" Fe/Ne setup with those two traits remaining strong without being balanced in some way by introverted functions... or are the introverted functions NECESSARY to stabilize the personality?

I guess that would be Jung's notion of a stable personality. He wrote about the dominant function burying the others; but he wrote nothing about other functions taking over the auxiliary role when this happens. Sim didn't invent tertiary theory, he's only theorizing that tertiaries play a role in personality disorders. Now what it means, function-wise, when an individual has many personality disorders is a question he apparently didn't think of.

As for this Ne/Fe stuff, I can identify with parts of the description, but I am neither narcissistic nor Fe tertiary.

 

[Mal12345]

There are other factors in the general behaviors of things like "controlling", "work-oriented", "fun loving", etc. Particularly informing/directing and structure/motive (both of which are "people vs task focus", which describes those traits you mentioned), and even to a certain extent, cooperative/pragmatic (which might shape how fast one takes "control"; i.e. self-initiated action).
These are all shaped by both J/P and T/F. (I/E may also affect this to some extent too).

Myers had determined that people who extravert judgment, or perception will have some things in common. It will be more of a mindset, than necessary behaviors, though they often come out that way. But not always, of course.

The difference is what you mean by "judgment" or "perceiving" type. To Jung, it was the dominant, while to Myers, it was the extraverted class of function. The descriptions you're talking about, which involve people's interaction with each other (called "affective") will naturally be shaped by the second definition.
Dominant function will not determine those things. Dominant will determine whether your ego's primary perspective is taking in information, or making decisions with it, but it's the standard of those perspectives that determine the function's attitudes, which shape those behaviors, and thus are what are represented by J/P.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The difference is what you mean by "judgment" or "perceiving" type. To Jung, it was the dominant, while to Myers, it was the extraverted class of function. The descriptions you're talking about, which involve people's interaction with each other (called "affective") will naturally be shaped by the second definition.
.

Yup. In this regard, socionics appears to be closer to Jung. I'm considered a judging type because my primary is the judging function of introverted thinking.

I wonder if the auxiliary function is actually as important for determining personality as the four letter/three letter(socionics) codes seem to indicate. As I understand it, Jung placed a lot of importance on the inferior function, and said very little about the auxiliary and secondary. The inferior function recognizes things that are unconscious. It describes what your struggle is, what your internal conflicts are. The inferior functions will "throw off" your primary. Inferior functions make people complex instead of just tidy archetypes. They seem to play a large role in the personality.

As for the tertiary, if the "loop theory" is correct, than loops reflect the natural preferences and tendencies of a person. The third function is supposed to be easier to use then second function, if less likely to be used well, according to the "loop theory". Thus, it will be more common for an INTP to use Si, for instance, than to use Ne. Ne often requires conscious effort, while Si is more automatic. It seems odd, then, that the four letter/three letter codes include a description of a primary function and an auxiliary function, instead of a tertiary and inferior function.

 

[Mal12345]

Yup. In this regard, socionics appears to be closer to Jung. I'm considered a judging type because my primary is the judging function of introverted thinking.

I wonder if the auxiliary function is actually as important for determining personality as the four letter/three letter(socionics) codes seem to indicate. As I understand it, Jung placed a lot of importance on the inferior function, and said very little about the auxiliary and secondary. The inferior function recognizes things that are unconscious. It describes what your struggle is, what your internal conflicts are. The inferior functions will "throw off" your primary. Inferior functions make people complex instead of just tidy archetypes. They seem to play a large role in the personality.

As for the tertiary, if the "loop theory" is correct, than loops reflect the natural preferences and tendencies of a person. The third function is supposed to be easier to use then second function, if less likely to be used well, according to the "loop theory". Thus, it will be more common for an INTP to use Si, for instance, than to use Ne. Ne often requires conscious effort, while Si is more automatic. It seems odd, then, that the four letter/three letter codes include a description of a primary function and an auxiliary function, instead of a tertiary and inferior function.

I don't know where you got most of this information. But this subthread is a good example of how people want to dismiss everything I say and then simply talk about their own thing.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't know where you got most of this information. But this subthread is a good example of how people want to dismiss everything I say and then simply talk about their own thing.

From hanging out in forums like this? Wikisocion has helped too. And if my sources are so inferior, what are your sources?

And it has nothing to do with you, but more to do with the fact that my ideal communication environment allows for a natural flow of discussion, rather than a rigid demand to stay "on topic".

Honestly, I'm confused, because you claim to be refuting JCF, but it seems like you're actually refuting MBTI and the MBTI stereotypes of "judging" and "perceiving" types. If you can give me an explanation of how I'm incorrect with this, I'll be happy to engage in the discussion. Where does Jung imply that "judging" types are stubborn anal-retentive people?

When Jung describes extroverted thinking in "psychological types" for instance, he says nothing about them being stubborn and anal retentive, unless I've missed something.

Perhaps you need to give me your definition of what you mean by JCF?

 

[Mal12345]

From hanging out in forums like this? Wikisocion has helped too. And if my sources are so inferior, what are your sources?

And it has nothing to do with you, but more to do with the fact that my ideal communication environment allows for a natural flow of discussion, rather than a rigid demand to stay "on topic".

Honestly, I'm confused, because you claim to be refuting JCF, but it seems like you're actually refuting MBTI and the MBTI stereotypes of "judging" and "perceiving" types. If you can give me an explanation of how I'm incorrect with this, I'll be happy to engage in the discussion. Where does Jung imply that "judging" types are stubborn anal-retentive people?

When Jung describes extroverted thinking in "psychological types" for instance, he says nothing about them being stubborn and anal retentive, unless I've missed something.

Perhaps you need to give me your definition of what you mean by JCF?

I'll start out by saying that although I may never know exactly what [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] was talking about, I do know it was only side-related to my OP.

JCF stands for Jungian Cognitive Functions (as you know), and the theory relates both to Jung's original theory as well as to developments in the theory made by others.

The MBTI is a personality survey created by Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother, Katherine Cook Briggs. It is a conglomeration of Jung's psychological types and Myers-Briggs' own ideas about personality types.

I'm not usually one to make rigid demands, but time and time again on this forum I am greeted primarily by thread drift from those who have no interest in reading the OP much less understand it, and who only care to parade forth their own views by parasitizing mine.

I didn't use the phrase "stubborn anal-retentive people"; and I don't know that Jung actually referred to judging types.

But if I were to use [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]'s standard of what should constitute a decent OP, I should have listed about 2 dozen characteristics for both perceivers and judgers, thus rendering my OP completely unreadable.

My thinking has nothing to do with stereotypes, but what is a judger or perceiver in theory.

 

[Eric B]

As for the tertiary, if the "loop theory" is correct, than loops reflect the natural preferences and tendencies of a person. The third function is supposed to be easier to use then second function, if less likely to be used well, according to the "loop theory". Thus, it will be more common for an INTP to use Si, for instance, than to use Ne. Ne often requires conscious effort, while Si is more automatic. It seems odd, then, that the four letter/three letter codes include a description of a primary function and an auxiliary function, instead of a tertiary and inferior function.

It's not about being “easier to use”; it's just a defense the ego runs to, because it's the next function in the dominant attitude. (It's the Puer complex that orients it this way).